Posted
by
Hemos
on Monday April 21, 2003 @06:14AM
from the get-your-read-on dept.

CBNobi writes "The 2002 Nebula Award winners have been announced this weekend. The winner for best novel was American Gods by Neil Gaiman (reviewed here at Slashdot), and the winner for best script was LotR:The Fellowship of the Ring. The nominees for the 2003 Hugo Awards have also been announced; Episodes of Enterprise, Firefly, and Buffy are all nominated for best short form dramatic presentation, and LotR and Spirited Away are among the nominees for best long form presentation."

Should it be seen as a sign of the times that the nominees are all either going or gone? Makes you wonder about the intelligence of the masses. Oh wait, we already know about the intelligence of the masses.

Unfortunately, it also says way too much about how short-sighted TV executives are nowadays.

TV executives frequently do not like hour-long dramas due to the high cost of production per hour; they still (unfortunately for us TV viewers:( ) like reality shows because reality shows have relatively low cost of production per hour. Even with its exotic locales, the best-known reality show (Survivor) is still a bargain compared to shows like the now-cancelled Firefly, the soon-to-end Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, and the potentially-cancelled Enterprise.

The days of a network letting a show find its audience are long over. You'll never see anything like how NBC allowed Hill Street Blues to eventually become a big hit again.

As far as I can tell, people are getting sick and tired of "reality television". While reality shows may still be gaining viewers(I dunno, do you?), many, many people I know are sick to death of them and are turning away from television moreso than before.

I think this just goes to demonstrate your point even further, that networks are only thinking short-term these days.

Is there not a single competent businessman among the bunch? A competent businessman would think long-term instead of going after sho

The thing is, "competent businessmen" these days are defined as those that only think about the short term. After all, that's what gets them the big bonuses, and when things start going all wahoonie-shaped, all the decision-makers can bail out with their golden parachutes and leave everyone else to die. Sacrificing short-term profits, even a little, for long-term stability and growth and an even bigger payoff ten years down the road is seen as stupid, unprofitable, irresponsible, and professional suicide.

if and when the pendulum swings back from reality television shot on location on video to filmed dramas shot on soundstages... just MAYBE they'll be ready.

Idiot, fucking idiot, you completely missed the fucking point! Dramas take YEARS to get large followings. If they were competent, they'd be supporting shows that had a chance of being really good, instead they go and cancel everything that isn't an instant cash infusion.

When the reality shit bombs, they will have nothing keeping them stable for year

They're also particularly down on shows that require a lot of special effects and sets every episode. Law & Order, for instance, is probably a lot cheaper, because it only needs an occasional stunt. The real problem is that they keep coming up with new shows to fill the timeslots and viewer segments vacated by shows they cancelled, meaning that sci-fi TV is full of shows you haven't gotten into yet and shows that are being cancelled. If the shows are trying not to be short or interchangable, it's not go

I'm using this category as a yardstick for how much to care about the Hugos in the future. I'm not demanding that Firefly win, as I don't watch Buffy and can't fairly compare the two. But Enterprise should lose.

A Night in Sickbay [firsttvdrama.com] and Carbon Creek [firsttvdrama.com] are absolutely atrocious and pretty bad, respectively. Neither is a shining example of drama.

Do read the links, and note that while there is some continuity criticism that you might be willing to ignore for the sake of a Hugo (though even that should count again

I don't care if he's Hitler, his criticisms seem valid to me. I didn't browse around much more of the site, proto-sci-fi Universes don't interest me, they're a dime a dozen. I've got one myself. Until they make it to a final product I've got better things to do.

Buffy is wrapping up but as a series probably has reached the end of its natural life. If you look at the season villains they have got larger and larger (by season 1: The Master - Uber Vamp; 2: Spike, Angel, Dru - Multiple uber vamps; 3: The Mayor - My personal fav big bad; 4: Adam - Frankenstein's demon; 5: Glory - a god; 6: Willow gone evil; 7: The first evil) to the point that it will be very difficult to top the current big bad. A spin off appears to be in the works. that may have SMG guest appearance

Congratulations, you're now Exhibit A for getting rid of the "troll" mod. I saw your post while metamoderating. Whoever modded you down was probably a Brin fan and didn't like to see Mister Uplift dissed. Quite unfair. It seems obvious to me that you're expressing an honest opinion.

I don't have an opinion on Kiln People because I haven't read it and probably never will. But your review sums up my reaction to the last couple of Brin books I've read. Like many "hard" SF writers, Brin has two nasty flaws: he

I'd have a hard time calling Alias sci-fi. The only sci-fi aspects (rather then fairly realistic and current science) are the Rambaldi storylines, and given what we've seen so far, I'm more inclined to call that fantasy then sci-fi.

It's a hard call because that storyline is so small and not-well exposited (to keep it mysterious) that you can't get a "feel" for it. I call it fantasy because right now the artifacts are basically working like magic, returning life to long-dead things and so on.

Oh man, this was an awesome book. It actually got passed around in my group of friends... one guy who doesn't read a whole lot really loved it. It's weird, that'd never happened before. It really is a great book.

I have to disagree. I found the book to be just 'ok'. It had some interesting ideas, but the main character was completely unintriguing (although, some of the other characters were more interesting). His name was 'Shadow', for Darwin's sake. The battle at the end was short and left much to be desired. I gave it to a friend to read as he found the topic interesting the way I had. He was also less than impressed. Doom's Day Book was awesome Sci-Fi and it won the Hugo and Nebula awards. I wouldn't put

'awesome' ? Um don't think so. You know, when it was released and everyone was talking about it I got really enthused and went to various bookstores looking for it here (in au). Nope. No luck. Never heard of him. No sign of him on the bookshelves at all in the SF section. Finally, found a copy at a discount table in a supermarket at 1/3 normal price. Read it and... it was ok, well written... but as SF ? Eh. Not impressed, well not as SF novel of the year thats for sure! In fact it reminded me of R.L. Laff

or do these sci-fi and fantasy awards seem like people in these sectors of entertainment simply jerking each other off, because the long standing awards groups don't give them the recognition they feel they deserve.

Don't get me wrong, i love sci-fi and fantasy. But some of the shows up for awards in the hugos, don't deserve any type of nomination or recognition. As for the nebula awards, I don't get to read much(I am too lazy, and I grew up in america so I don't know how to read), but shouldn't critical

Do you really need official awards saying that an actor or movie is good?.Hey, with a book it makes more sense. you need a lot more time to read a book than to watch a movie. If a movie sucks, you lost 2 hours. if you try to finish a novel for 3 weeks only to find out it doest get better, well then you lost a lot more time....

So you want some kind of review/award system to see the gems of the genere, but if "conventional" media either ignores or geekifies all the stuff, you need special awards.HEy, it only

In a way, I was saying the the whole awards process is flawed(not that I have a better solution though). Merely, that unless we award everyone, there is always someone who complains. but who wants that kind of a situation, it would be like first grade art class. I think we are grown up enough to accept the fact that some peoples art is better than others.

As for genre descrimination, I think that would be taken care of somewhat if awards were done in a similar fashion to dog shows. each genre as its awa

I really love The Sandman comics, but Gaiman has disappointed me with both books I've read by him: American Gods and Neverwhere. Both were above average reads, but nothing spectacular. His best book is Good Omens, but he co-authored that with Terry Pratchett. However, it is one of the funniest books I have ever read (right up there with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books).

Enterprise gets 2 nominations and Whedon gets 3?How about dumping the Trek spinoffs and put a couple of episodes of Farscape in. I'll put 'Prayer' up agaist 'Night in SickBay' any day of the week. And 'Carbon Creek' pales up against 'Kansas'.

Also, this shows you how important mindshare is. By many peoples account, Firefly was a show with potential, but it wasn't really good yet. But Whedon's name on it made people believe that it has to be great and deserves an award.

Solaris was easily the most 'sci-fi' movie of the year but Spiderman gets a nod instead?

Actually, Firefly was already quite good in its first season. The acting and writing was very good, and the crew really had excellent chemistry. It is true that the show did not really have a strong plot (it was just starting to get into the main story), but the characters were already well defined and joy to watch. There was a good amount of mystery that definitely added to the enjoyment. Unfortunately, we will never get to see where they were going.

I have over the years watched less and less television due to the poor quality of the nearly every show until Firefly came along. I did not watch it because of Whedon. I had very little experience with any of his shows, and being somewhat anit-vampires, his name was actually more of a detriment in my mind (misguided or not). I watched the show because I was hoping to find a good sci-fi show that I could really get into, and I did. In my mind, the quality of the show had little to do with names but rather the care put into the dialog, the attention to detail (no sound in space), and the incredible acting and chemistry (especially for a first season). Its really too bad that Firefly is gone for good.

If that's how you feel, why didn't you nominate them. Nominations and votes are not done by some secret cabal. Nominations are from all of the members/attendees of last year's and this year's WorldCon (2002 ConJose in San Jose, and 2003 TorCon in Toronto), and the vote is by members/attendees of this year's WorldCon.

If you don't join and vote, you have zero right to bitch about it.

You don't even have to buy a full membership and fly to those cities, you can just buy a simple voting membership.

I grew up reading Niven, Blish, Asimov, Silverberg Vance and others. Its kinda hard for me to start reading some of the new masters, not because I wouldn't like them, but maybe because I'm too lazy to explore new books (yeah, I know that's bad).

But my dilemma is this, I've read all Sci-Fi/Fantasy from Asimov, Niven, Vance, but have not yet finished all the works of the old masters.

Can any younger (or at least more flexible) Slashdot reader suggest a few authors that they've read and liked? I don't want to get into serials right now, perhaps something that is sort of standalone would be better as an introduction to a new author, I think.

The whole Ender's game series is awesome. Its perfect for introducing people to science fiction. The ideas that the books present get progressively deeper so that even non sci-fi fans can find themeselves enjoying some pretty geeky stuff.

Speaker for the dead (the second in the Enders series) is my favorite. It starts slow, methodically laying out the backstory, but crescendos into a very satisfying ending. I think Card's discussion of a network that could be considered an intelligent "alien" lifeform

I sympathize - I used to read tons of SF, but over the past decade or so haven't kept up. I want to get back into it, and my plan of action is simple - you might want to consider a similar approach. First, get the list of Hugo and Nebula and World Fantasy Award winners for the past 10 years. Read everything that's on both lists, then start in on stuff that makes one list. Then start following up on other works by authors who appeal to you. And start looking in on nominees for the awards who didn't win. Oh,

I agree Neal Stephenson's books are good but I just wish he'd learn how to end a story. The endings to Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon were terrible. The ending to Diamond Age was slightly better but still not terribly satisfying. It's so frustrating to come to the end of a book that I've enjoyed only to be cheated by the way he wraps the story up.

Orson Scott Card - some of the more interesting books I have read (pastwatch, ender's game, homecoming series)

Iain (M.) Banks - Banks is in my opinion one of the most underated writers of the day. With (sci-fi) or without (reg. fiction) the 'M.' his books are very good. Particulaly Excession, Player of Games, and The Crow Road, and The Wasp Factory.

I'm also an old-school sci-fi reader, but there are a lot of relatively new authors that have very good books.

I'm not sure what you call old scifi. I put in that category authors not because I think their stories looks like watching 2001, but because I grew knowing them so I don't remember when I first read something from them. In that category I put maybe modern writers like Greg Bear, Samuel Delany, Daniel Keyes, John Brunner or Alfred Bester, and all of them have good books.

One caveat with Stephenson - "Big U" is an interesting attempt to satarize a behemoth of a university, probably his first book. He hadn't developed his amazing chops yet. I worship the man, but I think he'd agree this is not worth the time.

Zodiac was pretty good. Strong narrative, some good characters. You can see the emergence of some geek-friendly themes. It lacks the absolute truckloads of storytelling talent he lavishes on subsequent books, but for many writers this would be their best book ever.

First, you should check out the Internet Top 100 SF/Fantasy List [geocities.com], which does contain many of the classics you've read, but also has a lot of newer authors you haven't read. It also usually has a number of classics from authors such as Lem and Strugatsky that you may not know.

I agree with most of the suggestions given in this thread so far. I'd also suggest looking into: "Diaspora", Greg Egan; "A Fire Upon The Deep", Vernor Vinge; The Book of the New Sun series by Gene Wolfe.

Give Wil McCarthy's The Collapsium a try. It reads very much like Niven and Asimov at their best. You might also like some of David Weber's stand-alone books (Path of the Fury, The Apocalypse Troll). Greg Bear might interest you, though one must be careful - some of his books are great, while others are absolutely terrible. I found Moving Mars to be one of the best, having both interesting ideas and good writing. You might also like Timothy Zahn's Manta's Gift or Angelmass - again, they have a similar feel

I'd disagree about Eon, though that's most likely me getting fed up with cold-war-era sci-fi at about the time I read it. Some interesting ideas, but I think the writing quality was poor. I agree about avoiding Anvil of Stars - avoid, avoid, avoid! Slant is also pretty bad, it reads like an attempt to jump onto the nanotech/biotech bandwagon of the time. Songs of Earth and Power was amazing, but its really fantasy, not sci-fi. Still, its a great story, with some very interesting ideas.

Unfortunately most of the 'new masters' can't hold a candle to the old ones. I keep hunting for folks who can do the job, but they're few and far between with miles of dreck to trudge through from one distant shining light to another.

Remember, this is the age where excruciatingly bad D&D novels are popular and are considered to be 'fantasy' instead of 'product placement ads'. With a few exceptions (George R. R. Martin comes to mind) the 'oldies but goodies' are pretty much still the best the market h

Its kinda hard for me to start reading some of the new masters, not because I wouldn't like them, but maybe because I'm too lazy to explore new books (yeah, I know that's bad).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. One of the best ways to discover new, good authors is to check out awards lists and award nominees. I've been reading SF since the late sixties, and most of my favorite new authors I've discovered in the last quarter century or so have come off of award nominee lists. Of course, I proba

I agree with a previous poster about looking at previous Hugo and Nebula winners. I started reading SF after the age of 25 and the prize lists were invaluable.

Despite its many problems, I also like Amazon for this stuff. I bought most of my classic SF from them and the "recommendations" they offered introduced me to a lot of the writers suggested by others here. I also like to look at the lists at Amazon especially ones that include my favorite books and try to read the other stuff in the lists.

Michael Swanwick Authorised Page here [michaelswanwick.com] has some good stuff, from dark fantasy to post apocalyptic eastern US, space beaurocrats to asteroid mining colonies.
I also like his short stories.
However I am biased as I have known him since I was a little kid hiding under my partents tables at various sci-fi con dealer rooms.

ha! hey there -- so my husband and pals read slashdot regularly and one of his buddies messaged me in SILC to tell me about this post. all you people who hasn't read SF since the old greats should read my book (it's a finalist for best related book). it's called better to have loved: the life of judith merril. she was my grandmother, known as the little mother of science fiction. more info [kissmachine.org]

To follow the Nebula race or pretty much anything about the SF or Fantasy trade, you just can't beat
LocusMag [locusmag.com], the online version of Locus. Some reviews (the print version is known for the most exhaustive reviews of SF - anything printed anywhere gets at least a mention), but the big emphasis is on fandom, awards [locusmag.com]
(not just the Hugos & Nebulas), opening and closing of new markets, and ongoing trends (check out
this piece [locusmag.com] on how SARS, war, and economic changes are turning our world into one that SF readers will find familiar).

It also has a
disturbingly complete necrology [locusmag.com] of recently deceased members of the SF community. It seems like every other headline is "So & so dies," but that's to be expected with all the graying pulp era artists, writers, and fans.

I would like to congratulate fellow Twilight
Tales [twilighttales.com] member Richard Chwedyk for winning the Nebula for Bronte's Egg [twilighttales.com]
and for allowing Twilight Tales [twilighttales.com] to
post it on the Web site.

That's an amusing troll; it's a little too reactionary to be convincing, however.

For what it's worth, China Miéville, who was nominated, is considerably further to the "left" than Ian McLeod; in fact Mr Miéville has stood for Parliament on behalf of a political party you would no doubt dub "sophomoric Marxist".

Not everyone subscribes to the last-man-standing-wins model of American capitalism.

That's rich. Look up the etymolgy of the word "idiot." It derives from the Greek word, "idiotes" meaning a private person, someone who does not particiape in public life. To the ancient Greeks, a private person who thought only of themselves was stupid, and so the word eventually took on it's current meaning.

So in the original sense of the word, those who subscribe to the last-man-standing-wins model of American capitalism are "idiotes," or private people unconcerned with civic responsibility.

Yeah, righ, whatever. I explicitly state that idiot has taken on the current meaning of 'stupid person.' I guess you are just irony-impaired. Or stupid.

Yes, my hauling out the ancient Greek definition of the word "idiot" in this case is a variation of the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument, but it fits the situation. You were being infantile, I was infantile right back, but it sounded smart, unlike you're original insult, which sounded, well, idiotic.

"Americans bad. Capitalism bad. Socialism good. Drugs good. High technology cool, but the best technology (computers and aerospace) is American. Don't ask us to reconcile that." - you seriously can't think of what sort of people might subscribe to these views?

"I'm glad to see the Nebula voters have voted for right-thinking, American-proud authors like Gaimain, and avoided socialist anti-American clap-trap like McLeod[.]" Sorry, have I missed something, do the Klan and NRA write sc

Ian McLeod is Scottish, for a start. I know it seems like a subtle difference, but at least try and get it right.

Ian Mcleod is a socialist and has written some pretty intersting stuff about how the future might work if you do not accept the inevitability of near-future societies that are nation-state economies driven by Capitalism. He nails the US, because of its arch-Capitalist nature, and ironically tags the UN as behoven to the US.

I guess he got pretty fed up with seeing the future solely portrayed as a Captialist utopia, something which he disagrees with. It's nothing personal, just another point of view.

I put down Cosmonaut Keep. It was just ridiculously silly and blatantly attacking America. I myself strongly criticize America, my home, because it is deserving of a lot of criticism with freedoms being abridged recklessly by some. But that book was ridiculous, and McLeod's socialist ideas were... juvenile.

Actually, Ken McLeod wrote Cosmonaut Keep. I haven't read it, but I imagine it can't be too different in political views from his other books like Stone Canal and The Cassini Division, both of which I didn't enjoy.
Ian McLeod wrote other stuff, which I've never read.

OK, maybe it's me, but I didn't find "American Gods" particularly enjoyable. In fact, I found it to be pretty lame. If that was the best Science Fiction novel of the year, I guess I have a better understanding of why I tend not to read much SF.

I think it was actually a fairly slow year for SF. Kim Stanley Robinson's "The Years of Rice and Salt" got good reviews, but for me it dragged - I couldn't even finish it. Maybe I'll try again. David Brin's "Kiln People" was better, but it wasn't his best.

To be honest, I think it's been a slow decade for SF. Many of the Great Ones of the genre - from Asimov to Zelazny - are gone, and the younger generation seems to still be searching for its voice.

And IMHO, its found it in Wil McCarthy. If you haven't read The Collapsium, do so now. Reasonably hard science fiction by someone who can actually write? Sign me up!

Seriously, there's a lot of good new science fiction and space opera authors popping up recently. Some good fantasy authors too. Most are still finding their way and struggling to stand out amidst the tide of mindless Tolkien clones and talentless hacks, but they are there. And then there's older space opera/sci-fi authors, like Bujold, that're still doing good work. I think the '90s was the slow decade, and what we're seeing now is a resurgance.

As for TV, give up on the American networks already. They haven't produced anything worthwhile since Next Generation and Babylon-5, and they're not going to anytime soon. Not while they treat the viewer as an inconvenient obstacle between them and their money and use legislation instead of innovation to protect their revenue. Turn to Japan for your sci-fi TV fix, and watch shows like Crest of the Stars (and Banner of the Stars, and the other soon-to-follow sequel series), Legend of the Galactic Heroes, Gundam, Macross, and the new Ghost in the Shell TV series.

(Anime sci-fi shows named off the top of my head. There's a couple dozen other great ones you can find if you look.)

One relatively new author that I like is Alastair Reynolds. He is a scientist who works for the ESA currently and he is a reasonably good writer too. However, he is British and his books are generally released about a year earlier in the UK than in the US. His first two books "Revalation Space" and "Chasm City" are reasonably easy to find in the US. His third book "Redemption Ark" should be out in June in the US.

Last night I just discovered fansubbed versions of _Last Exile_. Awesome visual style harkening to the WWI era of aircraft mixed with Star Wars pod racing. Just plain *Frikin' A*. Get it from Anime-Kraze [anime-kraze.net] as a Bit Torrent download.

Been watching that, but I didn't mention it here. Its more steampunk or fantasy than science fiction so far. There are others that are borderline sci-fi, but they tend to be more "X in space". (Stellvia, for example, feels a lot like Azumanga in space.)

Pretty slow, but there were some highlights, like David Weber/Baen coming out with War of Honor (the first book to _ever_ include a CD in the back which contains the entire series and lots more books).

There should be an award for "Best Publishing Innovation of the Year.":-)